Right, but to be pedantic, the OP's original statement was ambiguous.
"more thant[sic] #333 on white"... You could interpret this many ways.
A) You could interpret "#333 on white" to refer to the contrast ratio of "#333/#fff", which according to this calculator [1] is 12.6. In this case "more" is referring to a higher contrast ratio. "#000 on #fff" would fit - even though "#000" is less than "#333" - because the contrast ratio of the two colors is 21.
B) You could interpret the statement as "(more than #333) on #fff", e.g. increasing the numerical value of "#333". Something like "#444 on #fff" - which actually has a lower contrast ratio of 9.7 - fits, because "#444" is more than "#333".
This is dumb, I'm just pointing out that it can be important to be precise with your language.
"more thant[sic] #333 on white"... You could interpret this many ways.
A) You could interpret "#333 on white" to refer to the contrast ratio of "#333/#fff", which according to this calculator [1] is 12.6. In this case "more" is referring to a higher contrast ratio. "#000 on #fff" would fit - even though "#000" is less than "#333" - because the contrast ratio of the two colors is 21.
B) You could interpret the statement as "(more than #333) on #fff", e.g. increasing the numerical value of "#333". Something like "#444 on #fff" - which actually has a lower contrast ratio of 9.7 - fits, because "#444" is more than "#333".
This is dumb, I'm just pointing out that it can be important to be precise with your language.
1: http://leaverou.github.io/contrast-ratio/#%23333-on-%23fff